fix: optional empty validation

[mathis-m]

Description

internal logic does send null to validation in case of empty parameter input. This should be included in the validation, This was introduced with:
5c4dfc2 Mahtis Michel 02/03/2021 09:29 PM feat: enhance parameter validation (#6878)

I decided to refactor the validation condition to more readable state.
I think this is even more readable then the comment before.

Motivation and Context

Fixes #6998

How Has This Been Tested?

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Checklist

My PR contains...

• No code changes (src/ is unmodified: changes to documentation, CI, metadata, etc.)
• Dependency changes (any modification to dependencies in package.json)
• Bug fixes (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Improvements (misc. changes to existing features)
• Features (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

My changes...

• are breaking changes to a public API (config options, System API, major UI change, etc).
• are breaking changes to a private API (Redux, component props, utility functions, etc.).
• are breaking changes to a developer API (npm script behavior changes, new dev system dependencies, etc).
• are not breaking changes.

Documentation

• My changes do not require a change to the project documentation.
• My changes require a change to the project documentation.
• If yes to above: I have updated the documentation accordingly.

Automated tests

• My changes can not or do not need to be tested.
• My changes can and should be tested by unit and/or integration tests.
• If yes to above: I have added tests to cover my changes.
• If yes to above: I have taken care to cover edge cases in my tests.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[tim-lai]

@mathis-m PR merged! Thanks for the contribution!

[dferretti]

I know I'm late to the party, but I think this is relevant to this PR. I believe you can have a non-required string array param in the query, with minItems: 1 to represent "either don't pass it at all, or if you do it must include at least 1 item". Well, I think so anyway..
I know you can have a non-required, non-nullable parameter meaning "either don't provide it, or provide a non-null value, but never provide x: null". So I believe you can additionally constrain the array with minItems: 1 IIRC.

I am trying this in https://editor.swagger.io :

openapi: 3.0.3
info:
  title: Test
  version: 1.0.0
paths:
 /test:
   get:
     parameters: 
       - name: names
         in: query
         required: false
         schema:
           type: array
           minItems: 1
           items:
             type: string
     responses:
       200:
         description: OK

I would like to be able to test omitting the names parameter by not providing any elements, but swagger-ui tells me I must provide at least 1 value.

Should these minItems validation checks include whether or not the param is required? Or am I way off here and the spec doesn't allow that?

[dferretti]

Actually I may be off on what I'm talking about anyways - I was initially reading this older PR #6878, but poking through this PR I do see some null/required checking going on. Maybe editor.swagger.io is not running this code yet (is there an easy way to see what version it is running?).
Tomorrow I'll try just running swagger-ui locally on this version and see if it still is happening.

[mathis-m]

@dferretti you are right when there is no value provided and the param is optional there should not be any error.
I had a look at how it is handled for type: string minLength:
https://editor.swagger.io/?url=https://gist.githubusercontent.com/mathis-m/416a5796511d27cc7a6160bc9f9866fa/raw/4c8968e09386b67318c29827831c84994cf86d03/WZOi9WH0TP.txt

openapi: 3.0.3
info:
  title: Test
  version: 1.0.0
paths:
 /test:
   get:
     parameters: 
       - name: names
         in: query
         required: false
         schema:
           type: string
           minLength: 2
     responses:
       200:
         description: OK

It allows optional or minLength of 2 both is valid.

Have moved this to issue #7111.
#7112 will fix this.

[dferretti]

Awesome thank you!